Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 1, 2012 7:00pm-7:30pm PST

7:00 pm
blowing it up. the remarks enraged the larger arab, middle eastern, muslim, and southeastern asia the community who understood the remarks as reflecting a racist culture, and many had experienced firsthand in the aftermath of 9/11. the coalition of save san francisco first came around these remarks and fought for an apology. although an apology was issued, the then-police chief was not doesn't -- this about his plans to honor an intelligence unit. this give the coalition a new focus. the coalition started discussions on how the communities we come from were being impacted by bias law enforcement, and collectively, the coalition decided that arab, muslim, and south asian communities in san francisco needed a way to collectively voice their concerns to city governors.
7:01 pm
we approached the human rights commission with an idea that -- hrc had an official meeting to address these concerns. over six months, the coalition worked long sidestep to pull together a successful hearing. together with the hrc, we held an historic hearing with hundreds of committee members in attendance today, dozens of whom shared their stories with human rights commissioners, and many other officials, including three members of our board of supervisors. after the hearing, the coalition, alongside with hrc put together a report to summarize the hearing and make recommendations to entities within city government to act upon. we worked hard to have this report adopted unanimously by the hrc and board of supervisors. soon after the hrc hearing, the coalition ensure the most important recommendation in the
7:02 pm
report were met. central to these hrc recommendations is that all san francisco police officers, including those assigned to the fbi joint terrorism task force should follow local and state law when engaging in surveillance activities. we filed a record request and discovered in march 2011, in 2007, the sfpd had secretly signed a memorandum of understanding with the fbi. the mou, which was entered into without consultation with the san francisco city attorney, police commission, were members of the general public, dictates that the terms of the relationship between sfpd -- supervisor avalos: your time is up, but i believe supervisor kim has a follow-up question. >> i was court to ask you to speak more about the impetus that led to this.
7:03 pm
>> the ordinance or in the report? >> the hrc report. what i'm asking you to do is continue. . you do not have to think of anything new. continue describing the impetus that led us to the point where we are at today. >> we were part with simulators. in may 2010 we held a joint hearing with the police commission and human rights. thereafter we approached supervisor kim because she is the supervisor of the district where many of our mosques, many of our members live and have businesses. we have been working hard with supervisor kim to craft an advocate for the passage of this legislation that would require application of local and state privacy standards and local or sip standards and control as to sfpd officers working alongside
7:04 pm
the fbi policy toward terrorism taskforce. we are thankful for supervisor kim to have brought this to reduce this legislation and we are thankful for you being here today and for the supervisor that have co-sponsored, and also to the community members that are really great to come out here despite a discourage a climate of discrimination to share their stories and worked with you. -- words with you. supervisor kim: next i want to call up a member of the asian law caucus to talk more about the current issues with the fbi guidelines and assessments. >> on behalf of asian law caucus and coalition for safe san francisco, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. i would like to speak briefly about the existing fbi standards and how does differ from local laws, but i also want to share
7:05 pm
with you my personal experience being interviewed by the fbi. there are differences did in the federal, state, and mobile standards. under the fbi for more, they fall into three different types of investigations. under full investigations, those require reasonable suspicion before they can be undertaken. under preliminary investigation, which requires a fax from predicate but no action. the most thing that we find troubling is assessment peer those must be based on an opera purchase but did not require any particular predicate. imagine that, no factual predicate in order to surveil people or use informants in their communities. in a recent article, it was revealed between march 2009 and march 2011, over 82,000 of these assessments were done. by contrast, the california constitution requires an articular bulk predicate for all criminal activity. seven discussed and it requires
7:06 pm
any investigative activity or intermission gathering involving any first amended activity must be based on our table and reasonable suspicion of significant criminal activity and the first amendment activity must be relevant to the investigation. that is all to say the fbi standards are problematic and local staff to provide for the protection of our community. this leads me to my second point, which is this is real. the arab middle eastern, muslim, and south asian communities have been subject to racial profiling in the aftermath of 9/11. i was subject myself to an fbi interview. in 2001, was a college student. the horrific events of 9/11 or ee for me. i was shocked and deeply harm would have been done for my country. as an immigrant from afghanistan, i understood pretty quickly afghan lives would soon be lost as well. in the days after september 11, a co-worker told everyone in afghanistan should die for what had happened to america. i am sorry.
7:07 pm
as you can imagine, i tried to inform her that innocent people should not die for the paris conduct of others. my reward for my civic engagement was a call by an fbi agent informing me that i had to meet him at a starbucks or he would meet me at my home. being a member of a family that survived a war, i did not want to subject my family to a visit from the fbi. i did not know i had a time -- at the time to refuse or request an attorney present. he asked me about my family history or background. i told them about my father who was tortured and executed in the war. to be subjected to that question was frightening and had nothing to do with anything, and my story is not a typical pier recently, i took underrepresentation of a middle eastern college student who was approached for an interview. i spoke with the fbi, determined -- inform them that my client did not want to speak
7:08 pm
with them, and that appears to be the end of it. supervisor kim: could you talk more about what happened with this middle eastern college student? >> he was approached by an fbi agent who said i want to learn more about the country or from, i want to ask you questions. he said, i am a college student studying engineering. why do you want to talk to me about that? they said, of just please talk to us. he felt uncomfortable and intimidated and told them, i do not want to talk. they would not stop. the military repeatedly. he continued to tell them i do not want to talk. he contacted organizations like asian law caucus. in the interim, the fbi agent came to his home in the evening and put a card under his door. how intimidated would you feel if he knew a police officer was coming to your door and putting their target by your door? it was very upset and i
7:09 pm
contacted the fbi agent and informed them i wanted them to know what it was they wanted from my client. when it became clear to me they were really just on a fishing expedition, i said my client will -- does not want to do that. my client was extremely grateful that he did not have to go through that process. i am grateful that he did not have to go through it either. it was really difficult for me to go through and i should not have had to have gone through it. when i was subjected to an interview, i was afraid. today, i am angry. i want to profiling and intimidation of my community to stop. this ordinance ensures the proper status will be in place to protect our community. this ordinance matters because based on the standards applied by the fbi today, anyone can be subjected to the trip but i was. this affects everyone. thank you. thank you for sharing your story. -- supervisor kim: thank you for sharing your story. i want to acknowledge, many
7:10 pm
folks who are speaking today have come to make a major step and are taking a courageous step to speak in public about these things because they are very challenging and difficult to tell. there is a lot of fear at and of retaliation about speaking up about your personal experiences. i wanted thank you for taking that first step today. next, i want to call up -- from the islamic association of northern california. >> thank you, supervisor kim. thank you for the public safety committee for hearing why we are here and why we are concerned. i am the executive director of the san francisco bay area office of care for the islamic nations. since i joined in 2009, i represented or worked with an average of one individual per
7:11 pm
week with complaints of harassment targeting, or questioning by federal law- enforcement. none of my clients have ever been charged with a crime, but many of them have been questioned about their religious and political beliefs. an unfortunate consequence of federal and local cooperation on practices that have resulted in civil rights abuse has been a growing apprehension of law enforcement generally. as such, care supports the save as the sole rights ordinance because we believe that restore local control over intelligence gathering will restore trust in local law enforcement. there has been a lot of talk about the portland solution, so i want to spend some time contextualizing what is happening and why we think it should be a model for san francisco. in terms of history, portland was the only city that had chosen to opt out of the standard memorandum of understanding with the fbi entirely. they're not convinced of the
7:12 pm
need to protest pay and the joint terrorism task force. a lot of this changed following the christmas tree bombing attempt. the tone of law enforcement and counterterrorism took a new direction. not because bidding in task force was no longer an option. how could about civil liberties concerns and security work? the solution was that there would be local legislation. changing the terms of engagement between the police department and fbi. process of passing the legislation was open and transparent. you love the input from those of arts advocates and federal law enforcement. is worth noting in poor and the fbi operatives bid in the process and publicly dialogue with and endorsed the local legislation. legislation in portland that in contrast to the standard 2007 mou being utilized in the case of a sense of the police department facilitated this patient in the joint terrorist task force while ensuring various civil liberties concerns the elected by the memorandum of understanding were addressed. recently, the portland police chief issued a first annual
7:13 pm
reports on the joint terrorism task force. some key things to know include police officers in portland continue to be able to put his bid in the full range of jttf activities through legislation. a concern that pivots been raised in san francisco is the ability to purchase bid in confidential briefings. the portland reports there evidence that opposition given access to those briefings. the fbi did not and will not block their progress addition in the jttf, even if they are subject to local civil rights and protection. cheap reported they were directly with the federal court is on jttf matters. the look of the park and has been able to directly applied its own civil rights standards to its own officers bursa's what was previously offered by the fbi in san francisco. supervisor kim: continue to speak about what is happening in portland. >> the standard mou blog
7:14 pm
standard authority pier the cesar toward an six to resolve that and six local control over at the sfpd officer assignments and reviews as it has in portland. the portland police chief it affirmed strong multilevel redundant oversight as is the best practice in the realm of sensitive intelligence work is being applied in portland. this is consistent with the code and will be codified with the safe as of or men's and is necessary in light of the fbi directive blocking this type of local oversight. the chief and city attorney kent, as a result of direct oversight, make credible assurances that no civil rights law violations have taken place, rather than simply asking us to trust their assurances. the port wmata works and the recent reports indicate this. we are not as as need to trust our assurances. reporting to him on that and tried and tested. support of the save as of civil rights ordinance will ensure sfpd can continue its work of protecting san francisco while
7:15 pm
also safeguarding the civil liberties of those their work to protect. thank you for your time. supervisor mar: could i ask a question? why do you think it took a year? it was april 2011 for portland to pass a strong civil liberties, civil rights protection of its residents, of promoting local control over a anti counterterrorism work. why did they pass a year ago and it has taken us this help -- as long? just curious. >> i will defer to my colleague if he has any insight. but my perspective, borden was coming from a different place. they had not been participating with the jttf at all. a lot of times, this work is driven by fear. hear, what is slowing us down is the fear that if we change the rules of engagement with the fbi, we might be less safe. we are coming at it from different directions. supervisor mar: on behalf of the
7:16 pm
experience of the council and bay area, but are different examples of how affiliation with is lot more faith-based affiliation has led to brown the searches or arrests of people? i wonder if you could give us the anecdotes or information. >> it is a good thing my clients to not get arrested, but at the same time, it is frightening that they are frequently harassed by law enforcement when there is no actual suspicion of criminal activity. the clients i have represented have been questioned on everything from what mosque do you attend, who is the religious leader, who participates in those classes with you? i have been -- i have had clients asked about how long their beards are, how long they pray, tested by fbi agents. they are told we believe everything you are saying, you did not want to harm the country, but what you take a
7:17 pm
lie-detector test to prove it? at this time in history, that is unique to the muslim community. it is also important to say, it is not exclusive to muslim communities. many communities have experienced similar things over time and continue to suffer with us. >> supervisor kim: thank you. our last speaker is from the aclu, who boasted about the actual ordinance before us today. scores, you have your three minutes. after that, i will ask the committee to ask questions, if the have questions about the ordinance. >> let me start with an apology to the interpreter. i will try to slow down. my name is john. i am here on behalf of 10,000 aclu members in san francisco who feel very strongly about these issues. while we care about the range of civil rights issues, the reason we have 10,000 members right now
7:18 pm
is because what has been going on post 9/11. we plan to let them know when their supervisors, when the mayor does on an import issue like this. personally, i have 25 years of experience working on police issues nationally and locally. i coordinated the aclu campaign against russia profiling and worked on a number of important policies with the sfpd, one of which is the intelligence policies that are the subject of this ordinance today. i wanted thank supervisor kim for her leadership, the three co-sponsors who are here, and the two other sponsors in the room. we are pleased people are standing up for sentences can festival rites. i am honored to work with his coalition. i feel like john boehner. the question that this ordinance poses simply, it boils down to
7:19 pm
its san francisco will work with the federal government on counter-terrorism activities, hoosier controls activities? shouldn't these seven systems or the fbi? we think it should be sent and siskins. that is the mall that has been established in court, but it is entirely doable here. beyond that, should the controls be clear in writing, articulated, and illegal? we do not have the right now. i do not want to repeat what has been said. my job is to talk about the legal issues. they play out in personal ways. the stakes are, our constitutional rights to privacy that are still in effect at guard against these activities, a strong local policy against intelligence abuses that includes supervisor accountability and a corporate standard, a strong anti racial policy that prohibits in this town the use of race, religion, or national origin to an extent if you're not dealing with and subject description. the fbi after 911 cardona a huge
7:20 pm
exception in the racial profiling policies for national security matters. that is why we have these tactics going on today. finally in san francisco, we have the city of refuge ordinance that requires our law enforcement agency not to engage in federal immigration enforcement. and in a number of communities, including immigration activities. we have had for many years mentors civilian oversight. the history of this issue in the past is that san francisco stood up for these protections. when the fbi first said that it wanted to form the jttf and 1 sfpd to be involved in it, they provided an mou that said we did not want your control or policies. then mayer brown said thank you but no thank you. we care about public safety but we also care about our values and standards. initially, the mayor stood up and said we will not sign that agreement. if you have questions, i can briefly wrap this up.
7:21 pm
supervisor kim: talk more about what happened in 2002 and thereafter. then we will open up for committee questions. >> in 2002, they came up with an mou with a number of provisions that protected these local civil rights and state laws, including -- these are causes from the 2002 mou. the severance as the police department should be required to use only their investigative techniques. the chief of police will decide the specific objectives and organizational commitment to the jttf. control over sfpd resources shall be retained by the sfpd. responsibility for the conduct of officers shall be retained by sfpd. investigative restrictions imposed by sfpd will not be avoided. the informal policies applied will be the sfpd's. all those provisions i summarize, in 2007 in a secret agreement, were eliminated. they are taken out. what is in its place is a
7:22 pm
document that puts the fbi in complete control. it identifies all new federal policy -- supervisor mar: could use low down a little bit and explained -- slow down a little bit and explain. >> i apologize. we have a lot of speakers. in 2007, the fbi circulated nationally a new standard mou. in all fairness to the san francisco police department, i fully expected that they gave this to sfpd and said sign on the dotted line. we only find out because of the public sector records request be filed last year. initially we were told it along to the fbi. these provisions were gone. they went from local control, local oversight, local policy, state civil rights protections to wiping them under the agreement completely and in its
7:23 pm
place are a series of provisions in the 2007 mou that says only federal policy is applied. there is a clause in there that says the sfpd officers working the jttf cannot even speak to their own supervisors without the permission of the fbi, much less our civilian oversight system. the informant policies -- and there is a huge problem around that nationally. informal policies are the fbi's. those protections have been stripped. san francisco stood up for this in the past. we need to stand up for it again. well the brought this issue to the police department and the police department should speak for itself but characterized it in principle, agreed with us, issued an order and left this mou in place. when this legislation was introduced, the public affairs office issued a statement that said because we have issued our own internal order, the it mou the longer applies.
7:24 pm
that was the language used in the statement. no longer applies. to be sure we were accurate with our colleagues, we filed the public records act request about two weeks ago. do you have anything in writing for the fbi that says the fbi criminal law applies? anything in writing to release you of your local obligations to comply with it? the response was no, we have no documents whatsoever. they confirm this mou remains in effect. to cut to the chase, this issue is about committing to writing, simply in legislation, provisions to protect our legal civil rights. if you think about it, the idea that people should put our sole rights on the basis of mere trust, so when they created the bill of rights and did not say, trust us, we will not violate our rights to free speech or unreasonable seek -- search or seizure. it will protection under a law -- trust us, we would never
7:25 pm
treat people unfairly. california right to privacy. of course the standards are put clearly in writing. to suggest we should really trust, especially in the circumstance, with lots of rights violated, i think is inappropriate. there is a model that has worked in portland. we urge you to follow in portland's lead. thank you for your attention to this issue. supervisor kim: thank you. i have a question for the city attorney, ms. adams. how my understanding is any mou that is 10 years or longer must come to the full board for approval. in the case of an mou that gets -- the first one put in place currently with the fbi was put together in 2002. my understanding is, because it was amended in 2007, it was a
7:26 pm
new contract. is that the case, as an mou continually gets amended, that the 10-year does not begin, the time clock gets reset? >> i think it depends on the way the agreement is changed. under 9118 of the charter, and when you're as a contract, contracts are approved by the board this day and all $10 million in expenses or exceed 10 years order of $1 million in revenue. in the case of an agreement that spans -- may not have a dollar and not attached to it -- but spans 10 years, that would initially be subject to board approval. any amendment to the agreement would be subject to board approval. if the agreement at the time it is first entered into does not rise to that standard, it would not come to the board for approval and the question is,
7:27 pm
how was it amended? was it a new agreement entered into, at which point? then you would look at the agreement as it stands on that date. as you say, reset the clock their, -- there. if it is just trekking out terms, that would be a situation where you are turning what was a shorter agreement into a longer agreement and ultimately getting it to the point where it passes the 10-year market and would not need to be approved by the board. supervisor kim: it the intention of the mou are similar but there was a new agreement cent in 2007, does that reset the 10- year clock? >> not knowing all of the specific details, it sounds like it would be a new agreement. it would therefore be subject to resetting the clock. supervisor kim: thank you.
7:28 pm
at this time, i want to move forward with the rest of public comment. i will call out five speaker cards at a time. zina dubal. nadal taqwan. kershid kojoa. >> hello, supervisors. i mep hd can then at uc- berkeley, a former staff attorney at is an law caucus. i directed this award program for several years. all over the country, including right here in sentences go we are seeing over by federal grants surveillance that is unjust regarding south asian, arabs, muslims, leftists, and from some litigation we engaged in over the past seven years, chinese and russian communities as well. what we are experiencing is actually farmers than the infamous era of the 1950's and
7:29 pm
1960's intelligence gathering under j. edgar hoover. congress found the federal government had about 20,000 files on the new left over a 25- year period. today, between 2009 and 2011, the fbi has admitted that they opened over 80,000 investigations without a factual basis. during that time period, i represented 50 people in this and the san francisco bay area, including from the city of san francisco subject to fbi investigation without a factual predicate. the reason this is happening, as you heard, is because of the 2008 attorney-general guidelines issued just one month before president obama took office. these guidelines take the clock back to the point tell pro aero giving agents leeway to do basically anything they want

208 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on